Drivers threaten Silverstone strike

Originally posted by kar Massa I think had an issue with the leadership of the organisation. The way Coulthard talked about him after the Australian incident _he_ largely caused, probably showed how seriously Massa is taken by the other senior drivers (not very) and so Massa voted with his wallet.

I think you are right DC was way outta line with that comment, came across as a total bully!

Originally posted by pingu666 i think you need seat time in a f1 car to get a superlicence, so it is possible... but im sure the teams would want superlicenced drivers just to cover themselves.

for someone in kubica's situation, that must be pretty painful money wise, as i Less presume hes getting taxed a decent ammount..

It's still less than 10%, even in Robert's case. And if that's the worst example the GPDA can come up with it's still less than what every working Briton pays for their (compulsory) 'national insurance'.

I see no reason in making the drivers pay 10.000 if they payed 1.500, I understand why they are complaining, the point is not that they are payed x million euros, but that FIA can't increase so much fees.

It's still less than 10%, even in Robert's case. And if that's the worst example the GPDA can come up with it's still less than what every working Briton pays for their (compulsory) 'national insurance'.

It's still less than 10%, even in Robert's case. And if that's the worst example the GPDA can come up with it's still less than what every working Briton pays for their (compulsory) 'national insurance'.

As Maxxx says that most of the benefit is for the drivers.....

"We spend a fortune on safety and most of it is for the benefit of the drivers," Mosley told reporters at a lunch.

....thereby implying some of the benefit is for others, such as spectators, perhaps you wouldn't mind paying a 10% Max Tax on your next GP ticket?

To me the situation clearly shows a lack of direction with the management of the GPDA.

They are threatening with strike action, but what are the chances of them actually striking, their teams will never allow it. Why are they bothered by the situation now? They have already paid the money so in principal it meant that they have accepted the charges. If they really wanted wanted to make a more constructive case they should have gone public with the issue in January, before they paid for the licenses not 5 months afterwards with hollow threads.

- Drivers are wary of the possibility of a strike- Almost everyone disturbed by increased fees, answers from FIA deemed 'unsatisfactory'- Hamilton and Massa support GDPA-drivers- Alonso dismisses claim that once he earns $30 mil he can spare some EUR200.000 - 3-4 years ago it was a substantial sum even for him.- Kubica says that some of the drivers care little as they earn top salaries without many points (well done Robert), but he would give away his money in case it really helps safety.

It's still less than 10%, even in Robert's case. And if that's the worst example the GPDA can come up with it's still less than what every working Briton pays for their (compulsory) 'national insurance'.

how much tax(or similer) does robert pay tho? he could lose around 50% of his paycheck easily...

Asked why Webber thought it would be better to speak to Ecclestone rather than go straight to FIA president Max Mosley, who announced the changes in January, the Red Bull driver replied: "We can't get a meeting with Max, and we can see Bernie a lot easier, so it makes sense to go to him. [We should] pick it up with him to start with

In a letter seen by autosport.com responding to GPDA directors Fernando Alonso, Mark Webber and Pedro de la Rosa who had requested discussions about the matter, Mosley wrote that he was happy to make himself available.

But despite leaving the time and place of the meeting open to the drivers in the letter, which was sent earlier this month, it is understood he has not received a response so far.

They want to speak with the FIA, not a dirty old woman beating nazi pervert. "We can't get a meeting with Max" means "we can't bear to be seen with the dirty old woman beating nazi pervert, and we want to speak with someone who has some credibility".

They want to speak with the FIA, not a dirty old woman beating nazi pervert. "We can't get a meeting with Max" means "we can't bear to be seen with the dirty old woman beating nazi pervert, and we want to speak with someone who has some credibility".

"We approached the FIA two or three times, always by letter," he said. "And with not a positive answer, so we didn't agree on anything. We will see."

You fail to realise that the drivers said that they had had answers but that they were entirely unsatisfactory. It could be that in Max's letter of June 6, he did make himself available, but at the same time said that it would be a waste of time, because the rules were as he stated and not ten wild horses could make him change his mind.

It's pretty straight forward stuff jcbc, and not really open to interpretation it's a direct and standalone statement.

As I said, it is open to interpretation. "We can't get a meeting with Max" can mean "We can't get a meeting with Max even if he begs us to".

This is the first sign of Max's lame duck presidency. Even the drivers are won't meet him about saving them money. Max != FIA now. In name, maybe, in practicality, how can you preside over people who don't respect you? Any other president would have had a fax the next day requesting a meeting.

They pay the FIA a graduated amount in order to ensure safety standards while they carry out their job.

They can opt to pay the GPDA a graduated amount to ensure safety standards while they carry out their job.

Seems drivers are paying twice to ensure standards that should be in place as part and parcel of the 'spectacle'. Provision of medical personnel, cars and helicopters should be provided at both GPs and tests. There is plenty of empirical evidence to show the effects of fast medical attention after accidents.

The teams need to sit down with the FIA/GPDA/Bernie and agree on a minimum set of standards for tests and GPs and then agree how it will be funded e.g a third from the FIA, a third fro, GPDA and a third levied from the teams.

It seems wrong to make the drivers fund the safety aspects of the sport from their own pocket. I appreciate that the obviously receive the benefit of it, but really those sorts of things should be an obligation of event organisers, not a luxury.

A 1000% increase on fees is just bizarre. It doesn't matter what they get paid and whether its 5% or 20% of their pay packet its a huge increase. I'm sure if any of our workplaces tried to levy fees on us on that scale we'd go nuts.

The drivers all use the track and may all need the facilities and therefore there should be a flat fee for drivers for fees. Perhaps they could charge the teams for test events though. Might encourage them all to use the same facilities at the same time.

The likes of test drivers, who will be on minimum amounts of retainer and pay drivers will be hit really hard by those fees. Fluke results, such as if Sutil had got points in Monaco would have cost him a fortune.

Technically speaking, kar, the amount of money earned by F1 drivers is a private matter and none of our business. Therefore, we have no right to judge what they are doing with respect to superlicense fees proportionality to their salaries, regardless of whether we sympathize or not. right?

Why god help us?I pay 8% per week on my taxable income, which currently works out as 3.7% on my gross weekly income.

Gotta love being a contractor!

Dunno how you manage that, but since I work inside of IR-35 I have to effectively pay both employee and employer NI. And I can't just pay myself a rubbish salary and take the rest as a dividend which means I also have to pay the top tax bracket too.

because he no longer atttends gps for whatever reason he gives us, he is even more divorced from the drivers who find it more useful to try and talk to bernie than max, even though the issue does not technically even involve bernie.

what an embarassment that the head of motorsport is too ashamed to front up to the headline event but too proud and egotistical to step aside.

Dunno how you manage that, but since I work inside of IR-35 I have to effectively pay both employee and employer NI. And I can't just pay myself a rubbish salary and take the rest as a dividend which means I also have to pay the top tax bracket too.

And in my current position I can't work around it.

Big Guns - touche :-)

You had to pay employer and employee NI before IR35. I agree, obviously IR35 is a crock of shit. Either you are an employee, in which case you get all the benefits and only have to pay employee tax, or you are a company, in which case you employ yourself and can choose your wage and take dividends.

I am contracting in Switzerland, and should pay a total of about 28% deductions. The problem is that it all depends on where you live, and for 2006 I thought "Hey I pay the tax at source, so what is the point in doing my tax return". I found out recently. Despite paying tax at source, I have been told that I owe 22,000 francs for 2006, (this is over 10,000 pounds). Apparently, I am unable to appeal this since I didn't within 20 days, (at a time when I was going through divorce and my family leaving the country so not actually opening my mail). I therefore have to pay tax that I don't owe, just because of paperwork.

You may think that the UK system is bad, but trust me even in the "tax friendly" Switzerland, it can be far worse.

Originally posted by PiquetPete This explains why my hero Nelson Piquet isn't scoring any points - he's taking a principled stand against the fees! Well done Nelson! Start scoring when they change the rules!

You had to pay employer and employee NI before IR35. I agree, obviously IR35 is a crock of shit. Either you are an employee, in which case you get all the benefits and only have to pay employee tax, or you are a company, in which case you employ yourself and can choose your wage and take dividends.

I am contracting in Switzerland, and should pay a total of about 28% deductions. The problem is that it all depends on where you live, and for 2006 I thought "Hey I pay the tax at source, so what is the point in doing my tax return". I found out recently. Despite paying tax at source, I have been told that I owe 22,000 francs for 2006, (this is over 10,000 pounds). Apparently, I am unable to appeal this since I didn't within 20 days, (at a time when I was going through divorce and my family leaving the country so not actually opening my mail). I therefore have to pay tax that I don't owe, just because of paperwork.

You may think that the UK system is bad, but trust me even in the "tax friendly" Switzerland, it can be far worse.

Ouch :/ I was considering doing some work next year either in Zurich or Germany. I think I need to do some more research before committing to anything

Dunno how you manage that, but since I work inside of IR-35 I have to effectively pay both employee and employer NI. And I can't just pay myself a rubbish salary and take the rest as a dividend which means I also have to pay the top tax bracket too.

And in my current position I can't work around it.

Big Guns - touche :-)

/shrugThat's how it works out. I dunno where the 11% figure comes from, but plotting my post-tax-relief figures into the calculator on ListenToTaxman.com turns out the percentage I quoted.It's slightly different on my payslip, but then again that site doesn't take into consideration bank holidays and so on.

I do a high amount of mileage (950 per week) so my tax relief figures are very high. But either way, there's not a flat percentage of NI that gets taken out, with or without tax relief.